₦airaland Forum

QuinQQ:
Simple resson: if you've had a child since infancy, he is your child and you're his father and you're obligated to take care of that child till age of maturity. That's how Nature intended it.
It is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!
Other people fight for custody of children tooth and nail. You don't have to do any of that. He's your child and you get ALL the benefits of fatherhood. He carries your name, references you as his father, and if he ever becomes something ALL fatherhood glory will go to you!

You need mental reassessment.

QuinQQ:
Simple resson: if you've had a child since infancy, he is your child and you're his father and you're obligated to take care of that child till age of maturity. That's how Nature intended it.
It is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!
Other people fight for custody of children tooth and nail. You don't have to do any of that. He's your child and you get ALL the benefits of fatherhood. He carries your name, references you as his father, and if he ever becomes something ALL fatherhood glory will go to you!

So, are you saying the man has no right to know if he is the biological father of the child he is raising?

Are you saying a man should spend years investing emotionally and financially in a child, but he should not have the right to know the truth?

If a DNA test reveals a problem, did the DNA test create the problem, or was the problem already there before the test?

Why should the solution be to ban the tool that exposes the truth instead of addressing the deception that caused the problem?

Are you now saying ignorance is better than truth because the truth may be painful?

What about the child's right to know his or her biological identity, ancestry, and medical history?

If someone commits paternity fraud and a DNA test exposes it, do we ban DNA tests or do we address the fraud?

QuinQQ, the problem with this argument is that it tries to force a particular social outcome instead of addressing the root problem.

Because some people may make decisions others disagree with after learning the truth, you are arguing that they should be prevented from knowing the truth in the first place.

A man who discovers he is not the biological father and still chooses to raise the child should be respected. But that decision should come from his own choice, not from being kept in ignorance.

You cannot force genuine love, commitment, or responsibility by removing someone's ability to make an informed decision about something this important.

Why not let the man know the truth and allow him to decide what kind of father he wants to be?

QuinQ:
What exactly does it take to raise a child compared to what it takes to bring a healthy child into the world? How much does a child eat?
A child that may come with blessings and may later become great.

And nobody is forcing you to accept the child. But once you accept him you can't later start DNA fishing. Govt ought step in and prevent that!

Rubbish!!

QuinQ:
May wjat befall me? Whatever it is, back to sender.
You still haven't told us what is wrong with govt banning DNA test for minors. Mind you they're not forcing you to accept the kids. But once you accept them they're your kids. You can't later start screaming DNA!

go and marry first and stop making noise. When your wife births a child that resembles your best friend please don't do DNA test inugo... nshi aķpànà

Dogalmighty17:
This is why it is recommended that you buy your weed from genuine and reputable weed sellers instead of dubious uncertified elements.
That way, you won't end up losing your mind and making senseless posts like the OP.

Hezmatosky210:
But jokes apart, there's elements of truth here o. Because after the love and bond with my children from pregnancy to infancy to adolescent to adult, many times we've shared love, sufferings, laughter, pains and joy together then one idiot from nowhere wants to drag me to go and do DNA, as how naw? The fact is that, I will never ever want to think whether the children are mine or not. Children wey i nurture from pregnancy till now

Says a woman.

QuinQQ:
You're out to create bastards where non exists by going on a DNA fishing expedition

I’m not accusing anyone personally. I’m only expressing concern about values and what we see happening around us.
It’s about acknowledging realities and encouraging accountability.

Reflect on it.

CoolUsername:
No, it's about upending a family's settled lifeby committing infidelity and deception.

Because of this deception, the biological father may be deprived of the knowledge that he has a child out there. The child is deprived of accurate medical knowledge because a family history of certain diseases (such as diabetes) are strong indicators of genetic predisposition.

Funny guy, see below. A guy that donates sperm three times a week how many children does he have out there that he knows nothing of.
Besides, remember that we don't know that there had been infidelity. The state's concern is to discourage a settled family suddenly going on DNA fishing expedition (as is human nature). Note that Davido DNA is still not settled because woman was alleging they manipulated the test. You avoid all that and simply and happily raise a child that only knows you as farher!

TrainPark:
Just because your father took you in when your Mum brought you to him as a product of her polyamory does not mean normal human beings behave in such a morally reckless manner. I am 100% sure my father is my father because my Mum is monogamous with my Dad and did not play Russian roulette with her morals. Secondly, where I was given birth to, DNA is administered at birth as a prevention for potential hereditary medical conditions. So by the most advanced scientific investigation known to human beings, I am a confirmed biological son of my own father, 100%.
It must be really painful to live a life with the possibility that anybody in the community can be your father. Really sad for you, and I see the reason why this absurdity even makes sense to you. Kpelee.

By the way, how is a family where a woman is promiscuous to the extent of bringing bastard children into a home and living with paternity secrets a happy one? How can that exist as a truly happy family? I am now tempted to check the definition of happiness. Well, please go ahead and enjoy your happy family. Peace and love!

Ok, how are you sure king of your village did not impregnate you grandma or great grandma etc, as kings were wont to do those days??
Also, remember, we don't know that there had been infidelity. That's not the issue here. The govt's concern is to discourage a settled family unit with bonded members suddenly going on DNA fishing expedition (as is human nature) -because it benefits the family and society nothing. Also allegations of manipulated tests, bribery, etc. You avoid all that, save your money, and simply and happily raise a child that only knows you as farher!

bentenny:
If a mother can reject a baby that is not hers in the hospital why can't a man reject a baby that is not his own no matter the age?

That's the point - we don't know the baby is not his. But once he accepts the child and they’re bonded, state's concern is to discourage the settled family suddenly going on DNA fishing expedition (as is human nature). Note that Davido DNA is still not settled because woman was alleging they manipulated the test. You avoid all that and simply and happily raise a child that only knows you as farher! Can you please say how DNA testing at that point benefits the family or siciety?

correctguy101:
This can not be anymore wrong. Ya point seems valid but have you bothered to ask yaselves why some very powerful families are particular about who their descendants marry and have children with?

As a human, you're no animal, you should be different from animals, hence the need of genetic preservation through a specific line. Animals do as you recommend, they just simply increase population.

You're in effect asking humans to be like animals. If you insist humans should ignore matters like that.

If I want to raise another man's child, I'd best adopt instead of having myself played. That's human if you ask me. The option of not minding is exactly how mindless animals do their thing and if you're one like that, a pity..
Smh

Quite the opposite. Here's what I wrote earlier:

Nature gave animals an extremely strong instinct to have their genes survive and most of their actions are dictated by that instinct. That's why men want to sleep with as many women as possible, that's why a mother gizelle would give her life for survival of her baby. But as humans with brains why must we be exactly like animals?? We ought USE OUR GOD-GIVEN BRAINS to see that survival of our particular genes benefits us NOTHING! What is important is that we live a fulfilled, satisfying life that includes as much of life as possible, including fatherhood!
iWe are not lower animals. We are humans!. God gave us brains and we can and ought use it to override base animal instincts!

addictiv:
Saying we survived before DNA testing is like saying we survived before blood tests, scans and modern medicine. The fact that people lived without a way of discovering the truth does not mean ignorance was better. So that argument does not make sense.

You are also presenting the DNA test as the thing destroying the family. It is not. The betrayal is what destroyed the family. The test only revealed it.
A happy family built on deception is not truly settled. It is only settled because one person has been denied important information about his own life. You cannot protect a family by protecting a lie and preventing the victim from discovering it.

And what exactly is a DNA fishing expedition? A man confirming whether the children he is raising are biologically his? Women investigate men’s phones, messages, locations and friendships because they want to know whether they are being cheated on. Nobody suggests banning phones so women will not be tempted to discover adultery.

The government cannot not ban the truth to discourage people from finding it. That is simply government protected paternity fraud.

The man saying he has loved, suffered, laughed and bonded with the children, therefore he does not want to know whether they are his. That is his personal choice. Nobody is forcing him to take a test. He is free to remain ignorant.
But he has no right to demand that every other man must also remain ignorant.

And let us reverse the situation. A woman raises a child from pregnancy to adulthood and later discovers that the baby was swapped at the hospital. Will anybody tell her not to investigate because she has already loved and bonded with the child? Will the government ban DNA testing so that she is not tempted to disrupt her happy family? Of course not. People will say she deserves the truth and has the right to know what happened to her biological child.

So why is truth important when a woman’s maternity is questioned, but suddenly dangerous when a man’s paternity is questioned?

Love can make someone a parent, but love does not make deception acceptable. A man may discover that a child is not biologically his and still decide to remain the child’s father because of the bond they share. That would be his informed decision.

But forcing him to continue under a lie is not love. It is fraud. The truth does not destroy families. The actions that made the truth painful are what destroyed them.

First of all, all the things you mentioned are beneficial to the society and families. Please tell us the benefits of unwarranted DNA testing of a settled bonded family happily raising their kids!

Also, remember that we don't know that there had been infidelity. The state's concern is to discourage a settled family suddenly going on DNA fishing expedition (as is human nature). Note the case of Davido. That DNA is still not settled because woman was alleging bribery and manipulated tests. You avoid all that, save your money, and simply and happily raise a child that knows only you as farher and is very likely your biological child!

Actually you are wrong. Women find it extremely difficult to let go of a child they breastfed and deeply bonded with. If babies were swapped at birth a woman would not swap her daughter she breastfed and raised for a "strange" child. She'd want both but if she could have only one she'd choose her daughter, not the "strange" child.

Finally, how are you sure king of your village or some rich or powerful dude did not impregnate your grandma or great grandma etc,, as kings were wont to do those days?? How are you sure you are biological descendant of your ancestors? What difference has it made??

QuinQ:
Quite the opposite. Here's what I wrote earlier:

Nature gave animals an extremely strong instinct to have their genes survive and most of their actions are dictated by that instinct. That's why men want to sleep with as many women as possible, that's why a mother gizelle would give her life for survival of her baby. But as humans with brains why must we be exactly like animals?? We ought USE OUR GOD-GIVEN BRAINS to see that survival of our particular genes benefits us NOTHING! What is important is that we live a fulfilled, satisfying life that includes as much of life as possible, including fatherhood!
iWe are not lower animals. We are humans!. God gave us brains and we can and ought use it to override base animal instincts!

survival of our particular genes benefits us NOTHING

I disagree with this.

And even the talk of instinct. Whoever says humans are without it. I would have to ask you to elaborate what you mean by instinct in animals and I could argue that humans do have same, only that it's been numbed down... If you were to look at the ways of cave living humans or happen to go to villages very deep in the bushes, you'd understand this. I have been to enough to know this. Humans too have instincts like other animals, our difference comes from the different way our brains developed after long periods. Even animals have their own communities and rules they live by in said community.

I kid you not, in the animal kingdom, females select as do males. Why? They are always looking for a "suitable" mating partne....

Personally, the issue of DNA testing stems from the lies and deceit associated with giving another man's child to another. Most lions in the wild would kill that cub, go check.... Let alone a human.

we have men who get married to single mothers and took care of both mother and child, even children. But the main issue is the deceitful way most females do this thing. Some men would accept the young one unconditionally but why do you people continue to try and force this on everyone? Let those who accept and those who don't accept breath abeg...

I personally go out with a single mother, I'm a single father too. We take care of ourselves the best we can and given my character, I don't discriminate against her kids. And I expect her to accept mine too. But if she wer now to get pregnant and the child isn't mine, that I won't ever accept... That's my own bottom line...

Well done still.

I

QuinQQ:
God has blessed me and continues to bless me.
But never mind me, can you tell us how it benefits the man, the child, or society when a man accepts a child, bonds with the child, then years later start screaming DNA

Before you got up to type that nonsense up there, did you stop to imagine the psychological damage to the man? The betrayal? The heartbreak? That your write up there is nothing short of the highest level of demonic witchcraft. Do you know how many men, that kind of betrayal led to suicide? You denied a man the dignity of passing on his legacy and you call that what? How do you even sleep at night with this kind of mentality?

Ishilove:
Knowing the true paternity of the children he sired doesn't do the individual any good? He can should live out his life in blissful ignorance of the betrayal his partner meted out on him?

Kindly expatiate on what you mean by "uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions", please.

How are you sure king of your village or some rich or powerful guy did not impregnate your grandma or great grandma etc, as kings were wont to do those days?? In other words, how are you sure your ancestors are your biological ancestors? What difference has it made??

About "uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions",
remember we don't know that there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions" is suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!
Also, remember Davido and that woman. The case is still not settled despite DNA. The woman was alleging bribery and manipulated tests. You avoid all that, save your money, and raise what is truly your child and your child alone.

socoharley:
Rubbish!!

Try to state your points. That's what a civilized person does

socoharley:
go and marry first and stop making noise. When your wife births a child that resembles your best friend please don't do DNA test inugo... nshi aķpànà

That's the point! If the child resembles my best friend I won't accept the child until that is resolved! What we are talking about is a man accepting a child from infancy, bonding with the child, then years later start screaming DNA.

The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as father and is very likely his biological child!

correctguy101:
I disagree with this.

And even the talk of instinct. Whoever says humans are without it. I would have to ask you to elaborate what you mean by instinct in animals and I could argue that humans do have same, only that it's been numbed down... If you were to look at the ways of cave living humans or happen to go to villages very deep in the bushes, you'd understand this. I have been to enough to know this. Humans too have instincts like other animals, our difference comes from the different way our brains developed after long periods. Even animals have their own communities and rules they live by in said community.

I kid you not, in the animal kingdom, females select as do males. Why? They are always looking for a "suitable" mating partne....

Personally, the issue of DNA testing stems from the lies and deceit associated with giving another man's child to another. Most lions in the wild would kill that cub, go check.... Let alone a human.

we have men who get married to single mothers and took care of both mother and child, even children. But the main issue is the deceitful way most females do this thing. Some men would accept the young one unconditionally but why do you people continue to try and force this on everyone? Let those who accept and those who don't accept breath abeg...

I personally go out with a single mother, I'm a single father too. We take care of ourselves the best we can and given my character, I don't discriminate against her kids. And I expect her to accept mine too. But if she wer now to get pregnant and the child isn't mine, that I won't ever accept... That's my own bottom line...

Well done still.

You've just shown me a flaw in how I put my words together. I thought by "amimals" people will understand I include humans.
Here's what I meant to write below. I'd respond to rest of your post later.

Nature gave WE animals an extremely strong instinct to have OUR genes survive and most of our actions are dictated by that instinct. But as humans with brains why must we be exactly like lower animals?? We ought USE OUR BRAINS to see that survival of our particular genes benefits us NOTHING! What is important is that we live a fulfilled, satisfying life that includes as much of life as possible, including fatherhood!

QuinQ:
Try to state your points. That's what a civilized person does

I am an African man and my standards emanate from the conservative African norms.

QuinQ:
Ok, how are you sure king of your village did not impregnate you grandma or great grandma etc, as kings were wont to do those days??
Also, remember, we don't know that there had been infidelity. That's not the issue here. The govt's concern is to discourage a settled family unit with bonded members suddenly going on DNA fishing expedition (as is human nature) -because it benefits the family and society nothing. Also allegations of manipulated tests, bribery, etc. You avoid all that, save your money, and simply and happily raise a child that only knows you as farher!

Oga, not everyone comes from a place where women have the morals of hoes and bring children out of wedlock into matrimonial homes such that you are insisting men must accept. I don't know where you come from to insist on this weird and immoral behavior.

It is ok if you are not sure of your lineage, but normal human beings don't behave like wayward wild animals going around to impregnate women with wanton abandon. Your situation is a unique, extreme edge case, which would have been OK if you were not here insisting that the government should enforce your rather strange situation on the sane majority.

I hear some cultures tolerate polyamory, but most cultures frown at it and punish any such with as much as capital punishment even before European civilization.

Out of curiosity, why are you insisting that such a way of life as yours must also be enforced on others to the point of asking the government to enforce such weird, disgusting, and outlandish, beastly practice? Why should a man have to accept and cater for a bastard child even against his wish?
So a man that wants to perpetuate his own lineage must now be forced to cater for anything a woman brings into his home?

You are within your rights to permit your own wife to go and get pregnant outside the marriage and bring them home to you to raise and cater for. That is perfectly Ok and your own choice, but don't insist to the point of using government power to enforce your chosen situation on the rest of sane humanity.

correctguy101:
I disagree with this.

And even the talk of instinct. Whoever says humans are without it. I would have to ask you to elaborate what you mean by instinct in animals and I could argue that humans do have same, only that it's been numbed down... If you were to look at the ways of cave living humans or happen to go to villages very deep in the bushes, you'd understand this. I have been to enough to know this. Humans too have instincts like other animals, our difference comes from the different way our brains developed after long periods. Even animals have their own communities and rules they live by in said community.

I kid you not, in the animal kingdom, females select as do males. Why? They are always looking for a "suitable" mating partne....

Personally, the issue of DNA testing stems from the lies and deceit associated with giving another man's child to another. Most lions in the wild would kill that cub, go check.... Let alone a human.

we have men who get married to single mothers and took care of both mother and child, even children. But the main issue is the deceitful way most females do this thing. Some men would accept the young one unconditionally but why do you people continue to try and force this on everyone? Let those who accept and those who don't accept breath abeg...

I personally go out with a single mother, I'm a single father too. We take care of ourselves the best we can and given my character, I don't discriminate against her kids. And I expect her to accept mine too. But if she wer now to get pregnant and the child isn't mine, that I won't ever accept... That's my own bottom line...

Well done still.

Yes a lion would kill a non-offspring cub by pure instinct. But we humans have brains and should be able to logically override such instintlcts.

As for the rest, remember we don't know that there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions" is suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The govt's concern should be to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child! Also, sometimes DNA doesn't settle anything (amidst allegations of bribery and manipulated results and the woman ready to swear at any oracle that she had never slept with anyone else!)

TrainPark:
Oga, not everyone comes from a place where women have the morals of hoes and bring children out of wedlock into matrimonial homes such that you are insisting men must accept. I don't know where you come from to insist on this weird and immoral behavior.

It is ok if you are not sure of your lineage, but normal human beings don't behave like wayward wild animals going around to impregnate women with wanton abandon. Your situation is a unique, extreme edge case, which would have been OK if you were not here insisting that the government should enforce your rather strange situation on the sane majority.

I hear some cultures tolerate polyamory, but most cultures frown at it and punish any such with as much as capital punishment even before European civilization.

Out of curiosity, why are you insisting that such a way of life as yours must also be enforced on others to the point of asking the government to enforce such weird, disgusting, and outlandish, beastly practice? Why should a man have to accept and cater for a bastard child even against his wish?
So a man that wants to perpetuate his own lineage must now be forced to cater for anything a woman brings into his home?

You are within your rights to permit your own wife to go and get pregnant outside the marriage and bring them home to you to raise and cater for. That is perfectly Ok and your own choice, but don't insist to the point of using government power to enforce your chosen situation on the rest of sane humanity.

All you are saying are outside the purview of this discussion. This discussion is not about infidelity, adultry, sex, and such.
This discussion is about the state's responsibility to discourage unwarranted DNA fishing expeditiond of settled families - because it benefits the family nothing and benefits the state nothing.
Rmember we don't know that there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child since childhood.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions" is years later, suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The govt's concern should be to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!

socoharley:
I am an African man and my standards emanate from the conservative African norms.

Claiming African man doesn't give you any right to insult rather than present your points!

QuinQ:
First of all, all the things you mentioned are beneficial to the society and families. Please tell us the benefits of unwarranted DNA testing of a settled bonded family happily raising their kids!

Also, remember that we don't know that there had been infidelity. The state's concern is to discourage a settled family suddenly going on DNA fishing expedition (as is human nature). Note the case of Davido. That DNA is still not settled because woman was alleging bribery and manipulated tests. You avoid all that, save your money, and simply and happily raise a child that knows only you as farher and is very likely your biological child!

Actually you are wrong. Women find it extremely difficult to let go of a child they breastfed and deeply bonded with. If babies were swapped at birth a woman would not swap her daughter she breastfed and raised for a "strange" child. She'd want both but if she could have only one she'd choose her daughter, not the "strange" child.

Finally, how are you sure king of your village or some rich or powerful dude did not impregnate your grandma or great grandma etc,, as kings were wont to do those days?? How are you sure you are biological descendant of your ancestors? What difference has it made??

First of all, you keep calling it “unwarranted DNA testing” as though a man wanting to confirm the paternity of the children he is raising is some criminal activity.
A settled family is only truly settled when it is built on truth. If one person is happily raising a child only because another person successfully hid important information from him, that is not genuine peace. That is ignorance being presented as happiness.

You asked about the benefits. The benefits are obvious. The child has an accurate identity and medical history. The biological father can be identified and held responsible. The man raising the child has certainty. The mother is protected from false accusations. Inheritance and legal issues are clearer. Most importantly, nobody has to discover the truth after ten or twenty years.

This is exactly why DNA testing should be compulsory at birth. There would be no sudden fishing expedition after a family has bonded. There would be no accusations, suspicion or emotional blackmail. It would simply be a routine test done at birth for everyone.

You also said we do not know whether there was infidelity. You actually made my point for me, of course we do not know. That is the entire point of testing. You cannot say a man must first prove infidelity before he is allowed to use the test that could establish whether deception occurred.

And the Davido example does not prove that DNA testing is useless. Anybody can allege bribery or manipulation after receiving a result they dislike. The answer is proper sample collection, accredited laboratories, independent testing and repeat tests where necessary. We do not ban medical testing simply because somebody may dispute the result.

Your hospital swap argument also supports my position. Whether the woman chooses the child she raised, her biological child or wants both is not the main point. The main point is that she would want to know the truth. She would not accept the government banning DNA tests because discovering the swap might disturb her settled family.

She would demand answers. She would want to know where her biological child is. She would want to know how the swap happened. Even if she continues loving and raising the child she breastfed, she would still insist on knowing the truth.

So why should a man be denied the same truth?

Like I said earlier, a man may discover that a child is not biologically his and still choose to remain the father because of the love and bond they share. That is his decision to make. But it must be remain an informed decision, not a decision manufactured through deception.

Your argument about some king impregnating people’s grandmothers is irrelevant. The fact that people could not confirm paternity hundreds of years ago does not mean men today should be legally forced to remain ignorant when reliable technology exists.
We also did not have cars, phones, blood tests, modern medicine or computers in the past. That does not mean we should reject them today because our ancestors survived without them.

And distant ancestry is not the same as a man being expected to spend his life emotionally, financially and legally responsible for a child under false information. No woman and no government has the right to decide that a man is better off living a lie. Trust is not proof.

QuinQ:
All you are saying are outside the purview of this discussion. This discussion is not about infidelity, adultry, sex, and such.
This discussion is about the state's responsibility to discourage unwarranted DNA fishing expeditiond of settled families - because it benefits the family nothing and benefits the state nothing.
Rmember we don't know that there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child since childhood.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions" is years later, suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The govt's concern should be to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!

You are just contradicting yourself. It benefits the state nothing, but the state should be involved by banning it. Pray you take care of children that are not your own and this happens till your fifth generation.

You want to force your opinion on the state.

I will only take you seriously if you share DNA test results of at least two children that your wife birth out of wedlock. Must be your legally married wife. Till that time, all you have here are bollocks.

QuinQQ:
How is it a scam that you have a child that will know you as his only father and if he becomes anything tomorrow you get all the glory.
Who is scamming who??

Show the DNA result that all the children birthed by your parents aren't theirs. Till that time. You are just playing around. Who gets glory for a child who was forced on them? Not everybody can be that low. That is even if the man is alive when the kid becomes something. Children that women would lie about being the man's seed and then the man would take care of the children till he dies, then the woman will continue reaping rewards from the children (the children would keep taking care of her).

If government must permit paternity fraud, then you are saying they should also permit swapping babies.

Obligation? You just want to be foolish for laughs🤣. Go raise every homeless kid then.

QuinQQ:
I said OF MINORS. So there'd be no question of whose obligation it is to raise the child!

addictiv:
First of all, you keep calling it “unwarranted DNA testing” as though a man wanting to confirm the paternity of the children he is raising is some criminal activity.
A settled family is only truly settled when it is built on truth. If one person is happily raising a child only because another person successfully hid important information from him, that is not genuine peace. That is ignorance being presented as happiness.

You asked about the benefits. The benefits are obvious. The child has an accurate identity and medical history. The biological father can be identified and held responsible. The man raising the child has certainty. The mother is protected from false accusations. Inheritance and legal issues are clearer. Most importantly, nobody has to discover the truth after ten or twenty years.

This is exactly why DNA testing should be compulsory at birth. There would be no sudden fishing expedition after a family has bonded. There would be no accusations, suspicion or emotional blackmail. It would simply be a routine test done at birth for everyone.

You also said we do not know whether there was infidelity. You actually made my point for me, of course we do not know. That is the entire point of testing. You cannot say a man must first prove infidelity before he is allowed to use the test that could establish whether deception occurred.

And the Davido example does not prove that DNA testing is useless. Anybody can allege bribery or manipulation after receiving a result they dislike. The answer is proper sample collection, accredited laboratories, independent testing and repeat tests where necessary. We do not ban medical testing simply because somebody may dispute the result.

Your hospital swap argument also supports my position. Whether the woman chooses the child she raised, her biological child or wants both is not the main point. The main point is that she would want to know the truth. She would not accept the government banning DNA tests because discovering the swap might disturb her settled family.

She would demand answers. She would want to know where her biological child is. She would want to know how the swap happened. Even if she continues loving and raising the child she breastfed, she would still insist on knowing the truth.

So why should a man be denied the same truth?

Like I said earlier, a man may discover that a child is not biologically his and still choose to remain the father because of the love and bond they share. That is his decision to make. But it must be remain an informed decision, not a decision manufactured through deception.

Your argument about some king impregnating people’s grandmothers is irrelevant. The fact that people could not confirm paternity hundreds of years ago does not mean men today should be legally forced to remain ignorant when reliable technology exists.
We also did not have cars, phones, blood tests, modern medicine or computers in the past. That does not mean we should reject them today because our ancestors survived without them.

And distant ancestry is not the same as a man being expected to spend his life emotionally, financially and legally responsible for a child under false information. No woman and no government has the right to decide that a man is better off living a lie. Trust is not proof.

You keep conflating things. We're NOT talking of anybody hiding anything. We simply know is that a family is together, bonded, raising their kids for years. All of a sudden you want "to confirm", you want "certainty", you want "truth". Why don't you ask for certainty as to whether I exist or entirely in your head or whether you are dreaming all these? Why is it only in something that can massively upend a developing child's world that you want certainty? What do you have certainty about in this world? Is everything not approximate?

You were asked to say the benefits and you really didn't say anything. Have all these people who don't know their biological fathers died?How will DNA identify the biological father without having his DNA? If the test turns out negative all you have done is upend a functioning family unit - because you want "certainty". Will you take over the care of the child? The state's business is to make it very difficult for families to suddenly start DNA fishing expeditions on a whim.

Birth DNA testing is good if you can afford it and think you need it, otherwise look at your child. If she looks like you, take her home. If she looks Chinese, reject her! Don't wait 13 years then start screaming DNA. You can do it when she turns 18!

QuinQ:
All you are saying are outside the purview of this discussion. This discussion is not about infidelity, adultry, sex, and such.
This discussion is about the state's responsibility to discourage unwarranted DNA fishing expeditiond of settled families - because it benefits the family nothing and benefits the state nothing.
Rmember we don't know that there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child since childhood.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions" is years later, suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The govt's concern should be to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!

I thought it is "infidelity, adultery, sex, and such" in your so-called "settled families" that lead to the need for DNA?
Why should a government force a man to accept a child that does not belong to him?

tundebasic:
You are just contradicting yourself. It benefits the state nothing, but the state should be involved by banning it. Pray you take care of children that are not your own and this happens till your fifth generation.

You want to force your opinion on the state.

I will only take you seriously if you share DNA test results of at least two children that your wife birth out of wedlock. Must be your legally married wife. Till that time, all you have here are bollocks.

I am not contradicting myself at all. You the one don't know what you talking about.
Of course it benefits the state nothing except the possibility of being saddled with another fatherless almajiri!

Maybe you are the fifth generation of an outside conception that happened long ago. What difference has it made that your ancestors are not yiur biological ancestors??

You'd never see DNA of any kids I may have unless they grow up and do it themselves. Once I accept a child as mine, he stays mine forever!